the RIAA is correct in enforcing their property rights
If this 12 year old girl walked into a music store and stole a CD, she would be guilty of a crime, and no one would argue that she is 12.
Because she used a different method to steal someone elses property (copyright protected music) does not make her any less of a thief.
sueing your customers will not increase sales. A kid has only so much money to spend period. If they do not pirate they still wont buy more cd's because they have a fixed income. Metallica started this crap. It is funny how they pulled out an old interview with them and they talked how they would sit around when they were kids ans record albums to cassette tapes. What this does now is allow the movie companies to come out and sue for every movie people have recorded on a vcr to. Every cassette tape made etc.
It's not the recording that is illegal ( Copyright Act gives everyone the right to make a backup copy for archive purposes) The problem is the distribution (either for a fee or not) of those copies.
Did you know that a portion of the cost of a blank VHS tape goes to the MPAA for possible lost royalties. Same is true of blank cassette tapes to RIAA.
<<< RIAA has forced more than one business into bankrupcty for failure to pay royalities for use of their music >>>
You say this as if it is a good thing. Like the bogus & hugely inflated asbestos cases, sending companies into bankruptcy is a travesty of justice in this country. Lawsuits have become a scourge to democracy.
RIAA should be the one put out of business.
I don't download, but if I did I'd fight it and drag it out (somewhat contrary in that respect). I believe RIAA is taking a page out of the environmentalists tactics book. Take the situation where people in general would be least sympathetic with you first (12 year old girl). Everyone else out there will see what you did, and realise that if a 12 year old girl didn't have a chance, they won't either.
Or, you can view it as an adaptation of Soviet tactics - take some children out and maim them - the rest will comply.
"Most copyrights are owned by corporations, and thus death may never happen."
Corporations are legal constructs to allow a group of individuals to engage in business without all the problems of being individuals. (I'm ignoring ones set up specifically to limit individuals' liability). The notion of having a coporation having special protection on IP over what an unincorporated group of individuals would have is intersting, and I'm sure corporations love the idea. But again, it's the individuals writing lyrics, writing music, producing, mixing, etc. They'd do it with even 5 years protection, so why is more needed to provide motivation for artists to practice their art?
"Or, knowing beforehand that the song you wrote and recorded can only make you wealthy for a few years, you might find a need to continue creating new works to stay ahead of the quckly expiring copyrights"
Would a remixed version, or a new chord, qualify for a new copyright......I had to ask
the only problem I see with the RIAA case is determining damages. I'm not sure how you would do it. In my opinion, the RIAA is not worried about compensation, they want legal entities to stop the practice, somehow. The legal threat to an individual is not the risk of judgment, in my opinion, its the cost of litigation. In the first few cases, there will be attorneys lining up to defend the accused, but after the first couple of decisions, things will change. If the RIAA wins, defendents will be forced to settle, or lose at trial. If the defendents prevail in the beginning, the RIAA will drop future cases
"No protection gives little impetus for people to come up with new stuff, since it can be "stolen", and hey won't have a market which will compensate their efforts."
Or, knowing beforehand that the song you wrote and recorded can only make you wealthy for a few years, you might find a need to continue creating new works to stay ahead of the quckly expiring copyrights.
I will agree theres a downside, they might actually be forced into creating new music sooner than every other year.
They might actually have to think of it as WORK!
(That would be horrible.........)
"Having protection on music lasting longer than a musician, producer, mixers lifetime makes no sense. They all are motivated to do what they do while they are alive."
Where would you draw the line? Music writer, recording artist, producer, executive producer, mixer, musicians, etc. Most copyrights are owned by corporations, and thus death may never happen.
More importantly, most music being downloaded today was recorded in the last 30 years, and those "vested parties" are still alive in most cases, so the point is mute. The RIAA is not fighting to protect recordings from the 40's, 50's etc.......the generation that would have an interest in that music probably doesn't download too often. I can't picture my grandparents burning a CD or owning an MP3 player
The number is from an Inquirer piece, so it isn't a wild assumption. Losses due to downloading in general and damages due to an individual's actions are two very different things. RIAA's claim is the economic loss is what full retail price would be for the CDs. My assertion is the economic loss is due to not listening to the music over a web radio.
The number of years copyrights, inventions, etc should give exclusivity is a trade off. No protection gives little impetus for people to come up with new stuff, since it can be "stolen", and hey won't have a market which will compensate their efforts. On the other hand, arbitrarily long protection is a drag on the society as a whole, since it slows adoption of new technologies, produces a drag on dissemination of information (including music). Having protection on music lasting longer than a musician, producer, mixers lifetime makes no sense. They all are motivated to do what they do while they are alive. You can't demotivate them by removing protection if they're dead...